Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking IT

James Bond Villain Data Center 103

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-expect-you-to-die dept.
jeet writes "Data centers are boring and NOCs are doubly so. But this one sure beats all of them. Found this video of a data center suited for james bond villain on Data Center Knowledge website. The facility is established in a hydrogen bomb safe bunker and has generators used in German submarines. The CEO takes you around and shows some other cool features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

James Bond Villain Data Center

Comments Filter:
  • by Leafheart (1120885) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @08:53AM (#27596237)

    Isn't cheaper to just build a building than to refurbish some of these locations?

    Since we have seen a lot of this refurbished locations, a smart guess would say 'no'.

  • Yes, and no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @09:06AM (#27596335) Journal

    There are extra costs associated with refurbishing an existing location and the costs might be as high as building from scratch. There is however ONE important difference. Planning permissions. The old building is already there, nobody can complain about it being build anymore because it has already been build.

    For some locations there might even be restrictions on tearing it down.

    Constructing from new would also have the expense of first tearing the old stuff down. All in all, re-using a building is often very attractive.

    In this case, an old bunker is very expensive to build it again. The bunker is there, you either let it rot (WW2 bunkers are still standing beause they are WAY to expensive to tear down) or use it again. The costs wouldn't even be that high, it is a big concrete building, what extra costs are there compared to outfitting a newly build building?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16, 2009 @09:52AM (#27596907)

    It's a data center . It's also in an awesome location (Stockholm), and the building itself (internal and external) looks amazing. You don't have to be a nerd to at least see that this is an interesting bit of information about a uniquely designed data center.

    Pro-tip: grow the fuck up.

  • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @10:10AM (#27597157)
    I don't think the external renovation of the bunker was an issue, though. Also, depending on what the place looked like before the renovation, it could have been basically like having the shell of a building already built for you. I would also guess that there was plenty of primary power and ventilation already in place as well - and depending on condition, could have equated to a huge savings in not having to redo/replace it.

    As you point out, a lot depends on the structure being renovated but in this case I doubt there was much in the way of demolition needed to prepare it for being a data center. It looks very open so they might have essentially only had to run cable trays, elevated floors, and walkways.

    Regardless of how we posit how much it cost or what would be the better approach, they deemed it economical to put their data center there.
  • by afabbro (33948) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @11:06AM (#27597995) Homepage

    By and large, and usually on a case by case basis, this claim is false. It's difficult to make a sweeping claim either way, since there are many issues

    So as I understand your argument,

    • In general,
    • Depending on circumstances,
    • And it may not always be true...

    This is a case where there is no "usually". It entirely depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it. Sometimes it's cheaper to build; sometimes it's cheaper to reuse. Trying to make an argument that one rule fits all is silly.

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...